they've been going at it, it's so negative. people are desperate for a little vision. paul ryan, young guy, can he say look, that's great, but we can do better than this? can he take us to a better place? but watch out for joe biden. middle class, beer drinking joe biden. find they motional middle class moment and say paul ryan, don't you know the people you are going to hurt? >> and paul, to your point, if they attack, you want them -- they both should be attacking upwards. >> they'll either both attack up, or, and this is bad for the principals, they may just get along having a civil conversation, not helping president obama or mitt romney. so they have to be contentious toward the guy at the top. >> one thing that hasn't been talked about so far is poor people. one of the things -- we talk about the middle class being destroyed. it's important that we remember that paul ryan actually has

something to say about poor people. he wants to take away nutritionaprograms, i think if you want to talk about what's happening in scranton, what will help people in scranton is not what paul ryan is talking about. >> the debate is about to start. wolf? >> only a few seconds away from the start of the debate. a 42-year-old republican vice presidential nominee, a 69-year-old sitting vice president of the united states. two very, very different men. they've both been preparing almost nonstop the last few days, but preparing for weeks and weeks and weeks. paul ryan making it clear that he's gone through a tunnel of issues. and the vice president wants to make sure he doesn't have one of those gaffes that have plagued him over the years. both of these candidates, they are ready, they're getting ready to walk onto the stage. they are about to be introduced by the moderator of this debate, martha raddatz. she will make the introduction right now.

>> good evening and welcome to the first and only vice presidential debate of 2012, sponsored by the commission on presidential debates. i'm martha raddatz of abc news and i am honored to moderate this debate between two men who have dedicated much of their lives to public service. tonight's debate is divided between domestic and foreign policy. i'm going to move back and forth between the issues. we will have nine different segments. at the beginning of each segment, i will ask both candidates a question and they will each have two minutes to answer. then i will encourage a discussion between the candidates with followup questions. by coin toss, it's been determined that vice president biden will be first to answer the opening question. we have a wonderful audience here at center college tonight. you will no doubt hear their enthusiasm at the end of the

debate. and right now, as we welcome vice president biden and congressman paul ryan. [ applause ] >> very nice to see you. okay, you got your wave to the families in. good evening, gentlemen. it is an honor to be here with both of you. i would like to begin with libya. on a rather somber note, one month ago tonight, on the anniversary of 9/11, ambassador chris stevens and three other brave americans were killed in a terrorist attack in benghazi. the state department has made clear there were no protesters there. it was a preplanned assault by

heavily armed men. wasn't this a massive intelligence failure, vice president biden? >> what it was is a tragedy, martha. i can make two commitments to you and all the american people tonight. one, we will find and bring to justice the men who did this. and secondly, we will get to the bottom of it and wherever the facts lead us, wherever they lead us, we will make clear to the american public, because whatever mistakes were made, will not be made again. when you're looking at a president, martha, it seems to me that you should take a look at his most important responsibility. that's caring for the national security of the country. the best way to do that is to take a look at how he's handled the issues. the president said he would end

the war in iraq. governor romney said that was a mistake. with regard to afghanistan, he said he will end the war in 2014. governor romney said we should not sell a date. with regard to 2014, he said it depends. when it came to osama bin laden, the president, the first day in office, i was sitting with him in the oval office. he called in the cia and signed an order saying my highest priority is to get bin laden. prior to the election, prior to him being sworn in, governor romney asked how he would proceed. he said i wouldn't move heaven and earth to get bin laden. he didn't understand it was more about taking a murderer off the battlefield, but restoring america's heart and letting terrorists around the world know if you do harm to america, we will track you to the gates of hell if need be. lastly, the president of the united states has led with a steady hand and clear vision. governor romney, the opposite. the last thing we need now is another war.

>> congressman ryan? >> we mourn the loss of these four americans who were murdered. when you take a lookt what's happened in the last few weeks, they sent the u.n. ambassador out to say that this was because of a protest and a youtube video. it took the president two weeks to acknowledge that this was a terrorist attack. he went to the u.n. and in his speech at the u.n. he said six times, he talked about the youtube video. look, if we're hit by terrorists, we're going to call it for what it is, a terrorist attack. our ambassador in paris has a marine detachment guarding him. shouldn't we have a marine detachment guarding our ambassador in benghazi, a place we knew there was an al qaeda cell with arms? this is becoming more troubling by the day. they first blamed the youtube video. now they're frying to blame the

romney-ryan ticket for make thing an issue. with respect to iraq, we had the same position before the withawal, which was we agreed with the obama administration. the vice president was put in charge of the negotiations by president obama and they failed to get the agreement. we don't have a stat tuls of forces agreement because they failed to get one. that's what we were talking about. when it comes to the veterans, we owe them a great debt of gratitude, including your some, bo. >> thank you. >> but we also want to make sure we don't lose the things we fought so hard to get. and we agreed with the 2014 transition in afghanistan. but what we also want to do is make sure we're not projecting weakness abroad. this benghazi issue would be a tragedy in and of itself. but unfortunately, it's indicative of a broader problem, and that is what we're watching is the unraveling of the obama foreign policy, which is making

things more chaotic and us let safe. >> i want to talk to you right in the middle of the crisis, governor romney, and you're talking about this again tonight, talked about the weakness, talked about apologies from the obama administration. was that appropriate right in the middle of the crisis in >> on that same day, the obama administration had the exact same position. let's recall, they disavowed their own statement they put out early in the day in cairo. it's never too early to speak out for our values. we should have spoken out right away when the green revolution was starting, when the mullas in iran war attacking their people. we should not have called assad a reformer when he was turning guns on his own people. we should always stand up for peace, democracy and individual rights and not be imposing these devastating defense cuts. because what that does, when we

show -- when we look weak, our enemies are much more willing to test us. and our allies are -- >> with all due respect, that's a bunch of mularkey. >> why is that so? >> nothing he said is accurate. >> be specific. >> i will be very specific. number one, this lecture on embassy security. the congressman here cut embassy security in his budget by $300 million below what we asked for. number one. so much for the embassy security piece. number two, governor romney, before he knew the facts, before he knew that our ambassador was killed, he was out making a political statement, which was panned by the media around the word. and this talk about this weakness. i don't understand what my friend is talking about here. this is a president who has gone out and done everything he had said he was going to do. this is a guy who repaired our alliances to the rest of the

world follows us again. this is a guy who brought the entire world, including russia and china to bring about the most devastating, most devastating efforts on iran to make sure that they in fact stop -- look, i just -- i mean, these guys bet against america all the time. >> let me go back to libya. who were you first told about the attack? why were people talking about protests? when people in the consulate first saw armed men attacking with guns, there were no protesters. why did that go -- >> because that's exactly what we were told by the intelligence community. the intelligence community told us that, as they learned more facts about exactly what happened, they changed their assessment. that's why there's also an investigation headed by a leading democrat from the reagan years, who is doing an investigation as to whether or

not there were any lapses, what the lapses were so they will never happen again. >> they wanted more security there. >> we weren't told that. we did not know they wanted more security. and by the way, at the time, we were told exactly -- we said exactly what the intelligence communality told us that they knew. that was the assessment. as the intelligence community changed their view, we made it clear they changed their view. that's why i said we will get to the bottom of this. usually when there's a crisis, we pull together. we pull together as a nation. but as i said, even before we knew what happened to the ambassador, the governor was holding a press conference. that's not presidential leadership. >> mr. ryan, i want to ask you about the romney campaign talks a lot about no apologies. he has a book called "no apologies." should the u.s. have apologized for americans burning korans in afghanistan? should the u.s. apologize for u.s. marines urinating on taliban corpses? >> oh, gosh yes.

urinating on taliban corpses. >> burning korans? >> what we should not apologizing for is standing up for our values or saying to the egyptian people that mubarak is a good guy and the next week say he ought to go. we should not reject claims for calls for more security. we need marines in benghazi when the commander on the ground says we need more forces for security. there were requests for extra security. those requests were not honored. look, this was the anniversary of 9/11. it was libya. a country we knew we had al qaeda cells there, as we know al qaeda and its affiliates are on the rise in northern africa. and we did not give our ambassador in benghazi a marine detachment? of course there's an investigation so we can make sure this never happens again. but when it comes to speaking up for our values, we should not

apologize for those. here's the problem. look at all the various issues out there, and it's unraveling before our eyes. the vice president talking about sanctions on iran. >> let's move to iran. i would like to move to iran. there's really no bigger national security this country is facing. president obama and governor romney said they will prevent iran in getting a nuclear weapon, even if that means military action. last week, bob gates said a strike on iran's facilities would not work and "could prove catastrophic, haunting us for generations." can the two of you be absolutely clear and specific to the american people how effective would a military strike be? congressman ryan? >> we cannot allow iran to gain a nuclear weapon capability. let's take a look at where we've come from. when barack obama was elected, they had enough nuclear material

to make one bomb. now they have enough for five. they're four years closer toward nuclear weapons capability. we've had four different sanctions from the u.n., three from the bush administration and one here. mitt romney proposed these sang sh shuns in 2007. i proposed them in 2009. we had strong bipartisan support and we were able to overrule their objections and put them in despite the administration. do you think iran is not brazen? look at what they're doing. they tried a terrorist attack in the united states last year when they tried to blow up the saudi ambassador at a restaurant in washington, d.c. talk about credibility. when this administration says that all options are on the table, they send out senior administration officials that send all these mixed signals.

to solve this peacefully, which is everybody's goal, you have to have the eye tollayatollahs cha their mind. it's because this administration delayed sanctions. now we have sanctions in place because of congress. they say the military options are on the table, but it's not being viewed as credible. the key is to make sure we have credibility. under a romney administration, we will have credibility on this issue. >> vice president biden? >> incredible. look, imagine had we let republican congress work out the sancti sanctions. do you think there's any possibility the entire world would have joined us? russia and china? all of our allies? these are the most crippling sanctions in the history of sanctions, period, period. when governor romney is asked about it, he said we've got to

keep these sanctions. are you going to go to war? is that what you want to do now? >> we want to prevent war. >> how are they going to prevent war? they say there's nothing more we should do than what we've already done. number two, with regard to the ability to have the united states to take action militarily, it is not in my per view to talk about classified information, but we feel confident that we can deal a serious blow to the iranians. number two, the iranians are -- the israelis and the united states and the military intelligence communities are the same exact place in terms of how close, how close the iranians are to getting a nuclear weapon. they are a good way away. there is no difference between our view and theirs. when my friend talks about nuclear material, they have to take this highly enriched

uranium, get it from 20% up and then have something to put it in. there is no weapon that the iranians have at this point. the israelis and we know, we'll know if they start the process of building a weapon. so all this bluster i keep hearing, all this loose talk, what are they talking about? are you talking about to believe more credible -- what more can the president do, stand before the united nations, tell the whole word, directly communal kate to the ayatollah, we will not let them acquire a nuclear weapon, period. unless he's talking about going to war. >> martha, let's just look at this from the view of the ayatollahs. what do they see? they see this administration trying to water down sanctions in congress for over two years. they're moving faster toward a nuclear weapon. they're spinning the centrifuges faster. they see us coming into the administration, we need more space with other ally, israel.

they see president obama in new york city, the same day the prime minister of israel is here, instead of meeting with him, goes on a talk show. they see the defense secretary walk these sanctions back. they are not changing their mind. that's what we have to do is change their minds so they stop pursuing nuclear weapons. >> look, you both saw benjamin netanyahu hold up with picture of a bomb with a red line and talking about the red line be in spring. can you solve this, if the romney-ryan ticket is elected, can you solve this in two months before spring and avoid nuclear iran? >> we can debate the timeline, whether it's that short of time or longer. i agree that it's probably longer. number two, it's -- >> you don't agree with that bomb and what the israeli -- >> i don't want to go into classified stuff, but we both

agree that to do this peacefully, you have to get them to change their minds. they're not changing their minds and look at what this administration does -- >> let me tell you what the ayatollahs sees. he sees his economy being crippled. the ayatollah sees there are 50% fewer exports of oil. he sees the currency going into the tank. he sees the economy going into a freefall. and he sees the world for the first time totally united in opposition to him getting a nuclear weapon. with regard to netanyahu, he's been my friend for 39 years. the president has met with him a dozen times and spoken to him as much as he's spoken to nibble. i was -- just before he went to the u.n., i was in a conference call with the president, with him talking to netanyahu for well over an hour. in stark relief and detail about what was going on. this is a bunch of stuff. look, here's the deal dshl >> what does that mean, a bunch of stuff? >> it's simply inaccurate.

>> it's irish. >> we irish call it mularkey. last thing, the secretary of defense has made it clear, we didn't walk anything back. we will not allow the iranians to get a nuclear weapon. what netanyahu held up was when they get to the point they can enrich uranium to put into a weapon. they don't have a weapon to put it into. iran is more isolated today than when we took office. it is totally office. >> thank heavens we have these sanctions in place. it's in spite of their opposition. they have given 20 waivers to this sanction. all i have to point to are the results. they're four years closer to a nuclear weapon. >> by the way, who is worse, another war in the middle east -- >> they're closer to being able

to get enough nuclear term to put in a weapon if they had a weapon. >> you're acting like they don't want one. >> facts matter, martha. facts matter. all this loose talk about all they have to do is get to enrich uranium and they have a weapon. not true. not true. they are more -- and if we ever have to take action, unlike when we took office, we'll have the world behind us. and that matters. that matters. >> what about bob gates' statement? could prove catastrophic, haunting us for generations. >> he's right. >> congressman ryan? >> it undermines our credibility that all options are on the table. that's the point. the ayatollahs see these statements and think, i'm going to get a nuclear weapon.

when we see the kind of equivocation that took place, because this administration wanted a precondition policy, so when the green revolution started up, they were silent for nine days. when say see us putting daylight between ourselves and our allies in israel, that gives them encouragement. when they see russia watering down sanctions, when they see this kind of activi, they are encouraged to continue -- >> martha -- >> let me ask you what's worse, war in the middle east, another war in the middle east or a nuclear armed iran? >> i'll tell you what's worse. a nuclear armed iran triggers a nuclear arms race in the middle east. this is the world's largest sponsor of terrorism. they're dedicated to wiping off an entire country off the map, they call us the great satan.

>> vice president biden? >> we can't live with that. >> war shou always be the absolute last resort. that's why these crippling sanctions that netanyahu says we should continue and governor romney says we should continue. i may be mistaken. he changes his mind so off, i could be wrong. but the fact is, he says they're working. and the fact is, that they are being crippled by them. and we've made it clear, big nations can't bluff. this president doesn't bluff. >> i want to bring the conversation to the state of our economy, the number one issue here at home is jobs. the percentage of unemployed just fell 8% for the first time in 43 months. the obama administration had projected that it would fall below 6% now after the addition of close to a trillion dollars

in stimulus money. will both of you level with the american people, can you get unemployment to under 6% and how long will it take? >> i don't know how long it will take. we can and will get it under 6%. let's look at where we were when we came into office. the economy was in freefall. 9 million people lost their jobs. 1.6 trillion dollars of wealth lost in equity in your homes and retirement accounts for the middle class. we knew we had to act for the middle class and we went out and rescued general motors. we made sure that we cut taxes for the middle class, and in addition to that, when that occurred, what did romney do? romney said no, let detroit go bankrupt. we moved in and helped people refinance their loans. governor romney says 47% of the

american people are unwilling to take responsibility of their lives. my friend said 30% are takers. these people are my mom and dad, my neighbors. they pay more tax than governor romney pays. they are elderly people who in fact are living off of social security. there are veterans who are not quote not paying taxes. i've had it up to here with this notion ds-- instead of signing pledges not to ask the wealthiest among us to contribute to bring back the middle class, they should be signing a pledge saying to the middle class, we're going to level the playing field. we're going to give you a fair shot again. we are going to not repeat the mistakes we made in the past by having a different set of rules for wall street and main street. making sure that we continue to hemorrhage these tax cuts for the super wealthy. they're pushing the continuation

of a tax cut that will give an additional $500 billion in tax cuts to 120,000 families. and they're holding hostage the middle class tax cut, because they say we won't pass, we won't continue the middle class tax cut unless you give it for the super wealthy. it's abou time they take responsibility. >> mr. ryan? >> joe and i are from similar towns. we's from scranton, pennsylvania. i'm from janesville, wisconsin. you know what the unemployment rate in scranton is? it's 10%. the day you came into office it was 8. 5%. that's how it's going all around america. >> that's not how it is, it's going down. >> did they inherit a tough situation? absolutely. but we're going in the wrong direction. look at where we are. the economy is barely limping along. it's growing at 1.3%. that's slower than last year and last year was slower than the

year before. job growth in september was slower than it was in august and august was slower than july. we're heading in the wrong direction. 23 million americans are struggling for work today. 15% of americans are living in poverty today. this is not what a real recovery looks like. we need real reforms and that's what we're proposing. it's a five point plan. get america energy independent by the end of the decade. help people that are hurting get the skills to get the job they want. make trade work for america so we can make more things in america. and sell them overseas and champion small businesses. don't raise taxes on small businesses because they're the job creators. he talks about detroit. mitt romney is a car guy. let me tell you about the mitt romney i know. this is a guy two i was talking to a family in massachusetts the other day.

cheryl and mark nixon. their kids were hit in a car crash, four of them, two of them, rob and reed, were paralyzed. the romneys didn't know them. they went to the same church, they never met before. mitt asked if he would come over for christmas. he brought his wife and boys and gifts and later said, i know you're struggling, mark. don't worry about their college, i'll pay for it. when mark told me this story, he said it wasn't the cash help. it's that he gave his time and he has consistently. this is a man who gave 30% of his income to charity, more than the two of us combined. mitt romney cares about 100% of americans in this country. with respect to that quote, i think the vice president knows that words sometimes don't come out of your mouth the right way. >> but i always say what i mean.

and so does romney. >> we want everybody to succeed. we want to get people out of poverty. we believe in opportunity. that's what we're going to push for in a romney administration. >> vice president? i have a feeling you have a few things to say here. >> the idea, if you heard that little quote about the 30%, if you think that, i've got a bridge to sell you. i don't doubt his personal generosity. i understand what it's like. when i was a little younger than the congressman, my wife was in an accident, killed my daughter and my wife and my two sons survived. i've sat in the homes of many people that have gone through what i have gone through. so i don't doubt his personal commitment to individuals. but you know what?

i know he had no commitment to the automobile industry. he said let it go bankrupt, period. let it drop out. all this talk, we saved a million jobs. 200,000 people are working today. and i've never met two guys more down on america across the board. we're told everything is going badly. 5. 2 million new jobs, private sector jobs. we need more. but 5. 2 million. if they would get out of the way and let us pass the tax cut for the middle class and make it permanent. if they would let us allow 14 million people struggling to stay in their homes because their mortgages are upside down, just get out of the way. stop talking about how you care about people. show me something. show me a policy. show me a policy where you take responsibility. and by the way, they talk about this great recession as if it fell out of the sky,like oh, my goodness, where it did come

from? it came from this man voting to put two cars on a credit card, at the same time put a prescription drug benefit on the credit card, a trillion dollar tax cut for the wealthy. i voted against them. i said no, we can't afford that. now all of a sudden these guys are so seized with the concern about the debt that they created -- >> congressman ryan? >> let's not forget that they came in with one party control. when barack obama was elected, his party controlled everything. they had the ability to do everything of their choosing and look at where we are right now. they passed the stimulus. the idea that we could borrow $831 billion, spend it on these special interest groups and it would work out just fine. that unemployment would never get to 8%. they said right now if we just pass this stimulus, the economy would grow at 4%. it' growing at 1.3%. >> when did you get it below 6%? >> that's the entire premise of

our plan. getting the economy growing at 4%. creating 12 million jobs in four years. $90 billion in green pork to campaign contribute fors and special interest groups. just at the department of energy, there are over 100 criminal investigations that have been launched -- >> martha, look, his colleague runs an investigative committee, spent months and months going -- >> this is the inspector general. >> they found no evidence of cronyism. and i love my friend here. i am not allowed to show letters, but go to our website. he sent me two letters saying, by the way, can you send me some stimulus money for companies here in the state of wisconsin? we sent millions of dollars. >> you did ask for stimulus money, correct? >> on two occasions, weed advo e advocated for constituents

applying for grants. >> i love that. this is such a bad program and he writes me a letter sting, the reason we need this stimulus, it will create growth and jobs. his words. and now he's sitting here looking at me, and by the way, that program, again, investigated. what the congress said was, it was a model. less than 0.4% waste or fraud in the program. all this talk about cronyism. they investigated and did not find any evidence. i wish he would be a little more candid. >> was it a good idea to spend taxpayer dollars on cars in finland or wind mills in china. was it a good idea to borrow this money from china and spend it on these interest groups? >> it was a good idea to stop us from going off the cliff and set the conditions to grow again.

we have in fact 4% of those green jobs didn't go under. it's a better batting average than investment bankers had. >> where are the 5 million green jobs -- >> i want to move on here to medicare and entitlements. >> by the way, any letter you send me, i'll entertain. >> i appreciate that, joe. >> both medicare and social security are going broke and taking a larger share of the budget in the process. will benefits for americans under these programs have to change for the programs to survive, mr. ryan? >> absolutely. medicare and social security are going bankrupt. these are indisputable facts. we've all had tragedies in our lives. i think about what they've done for my own family. my mom and i had my grandmother move in with us facing alzheimer's. medicare was there for us.

after my dad died, my mom and i got social security and paid for college benefits. helped her go back to college in her 50s. he paid all of her taxes on the promise that these programs would be there for her. we will honor these promises. you see, if you reform these programs for my generation, people 54 and below, you can guarantee they don't change for people in or near retirement, which is what mitt romney and i proposing. look what obama care does. it takes $716 billion from medicare to spend on obama care. you can't spend the same dollar twice. you can't claim this money goes to medicare and obama care. then they put this obama care board in charge of cutting medicare each year that will lead to denial of care for current seniors.

social security, if we don't shore up social security, when we run out of the ious, when the program goes bankrupt, a 25% across the board benefit cut kicks in on seniors in the middle of their retirement. they haven't put a credible solution on the table. he'll tell you about vouchers and say all these things to scare people. give younger people, when they become medicare eligible, guaranteed coverage options that you can't be denied, including traditional medicare. more coverage for middle income people and total out of pocket coverage for the poor and sick. choice and competition. we would rather have 50 million future seniors determine how their medicare is delivered to them, instead of 15 bureaucrats deciding wha when, if and where they get it. >> i heard that death panel argument from sarah palin.

let's talk about medicare. what we did is we saved $716 billion and put it back, applied it to medicare. we cut the cost of medicare. we stopped overpaying insurance companies. the ama supported what we did. aarp endorsed what we did. and it extends the life of medicare to 2024. they want to wip this all out. it also gave more benefits. any senior out there, ask yourself, do you have more benefits today? you do. if you're near the doughnut hole, you have $600 more to help your prescription drug cost. you get wellness visits without co-pays. they wiped this out and medicare becomes insolvent in 2016. when they first posed the first voucher program, the cbo said it would cost $6,400 a year,

martha, more for every senior 55 and below when they got there. he knew that. yet he got all the guys in congress to vote for it. governor romney, knowing that, said i would sign it were i there. who do you believe? the ama, me, a guy who has fought his whole life for this or somebody who put in motion a plan that knowingly cuts -- added $6,400 a year more to the cost of medicare. now they've got a new plan. trust me, it's not going to cost you anymore. folks, follow your instincts on this one. and with regard to social security, we will not -- we will not privatize it. if we had listened to romney, governor romney and the congressman during the bush years, imagine where all those seniors would be now if their money had been in the market. their ideas are old and bad and they eliminate the guarantee of medicare.

>> here's the problem. they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar, turning medicare into a piggy bank for obama care. their own actuary from the administration came to congress and said 1 out of 6 hospitals and nursing homes are going to go out of business as a result of this. 7.4 million seniors are projected to lose the coverage they have, that's the $3,200 benefit cut. these are from your own actuaries. >> more people signed up for medicare advantage after the change. nobody is -- >> mr. vice president, i know -- mr. vice president i know you're under a lot of duress to make up for lost ground, but people would be better served if we don't keep interrupting each other. >> don't take all the four minutes again. >> we're saying don't change benefits for people 55 and above. >> let me ask you this, what is your specific plan for seniors who really can't afford to make up the difference in the value

of what you call a premium support plan and others call a voucher? >> 100% coverage. that's what we're saying. we're saying -- >> how do you make that up? >> taking down subsidies for wealthy people. by that way, that $6,400 number was misleading. this is a bipartisan plan. i put it together with a prominent democratic senator in dshl >> there's not one democrat who endorses it. >> our partner is a democrat from oregon. >> and he says he no longer supports it. >> we put it together with the former clinton -- >> who disavows it. >> here's the point, martha. if we don't fix this problem soon, then current seniors get cut. here's the problem. 10,000 people are retiring every day in america today and they will for 20 years. at's not a political thing, that's a math thing. >> if we just -- if they just

allow medicare to bargain for the cost of drugs like medicaid can, that would save $156 billion right off the bat. >> and it would deny seniors choices. >> seniors are not denied. >> absolutely. >> look, folks, all you seniors out there, have you been denied choices? have you lost medicare advantage? >> vice president biden, if it could help solve the problem, why not slowly raise the medicare eligibility age by two years? >> look, i was there when we did that with social security in 1983. i was one of eight people sitting in a room that included tip o'neill negotiating with president reagan. we all got together and everybody said, as long as everybody is in the deal, everybody is in the deal, and everybody is making some sacrifice, we can find a way. we made the system solvent to 2033. we will not, though, be part of

any voucher plan eliminating -- the voucher says, mom, when you're 65, go out there, shop for the best insurance you can get. you're out of medicare, you can buy back in with this voucher, which will not keep case with health care costs. because if it did keep pace, there would be no savings. that's why they go the voucher. we will be no part of a voucher program or the privatization of social security. >> a voucher is you go to your mailbox, get a check and buy something. nobody is proposing that. barack obama four years ago staid, if you don't have any fresh ideas, use stale tactics to scare voters. if you don't have a good record to run on, paint your opponent as someone to run from. >> you were one of the few to stand with president bush when he was seeking to partially private size social security.

>> what we said then is let younger americans have a voluntary choice of making their money work fasts for them within the social security system. that's not what mitt romney is proposing. we're saying no changes for anybody 55 and over. and then the kinds of changes we're talking about for younger people like myself is don't increase the bin ladenefits fore like myself. >> martha -- martha -- >> here's the -- >> quickly, vice president. >> quickly, the bottom line is that all the studies show if we went with social security proposals made by mitt romney, if you're in your 40s now, you'll pay $2,600 a year -- you get $2,600 a year less in social security. if you're in your 20s, you get $4,700 a year less. the idea of changing and change being in this case to cut the benefits for people without taking other action you could do to make it work is absolutely the wrong way.

look, these guys haven't been big on medicare from the beginning. and they've always been about social security, as little as you can do. look, folks, use your common sense. who do you trust on this? a man who introduced a bill that would raise it $6,400 a year, knowing it and passing it and romney saying you sign it or me and the president. >> that was completely misleading. this is what politicians do when they don't have a record to run on. try to scare people from voting for you. if you don't get ahead of this problem, it's going to -- >> medicare beneficiaries -- >> we're going to move on. i have a simple question dshl >> medicare and social security did so much for my own family. we're not going to jeopardize the program. >> you are changing the program from a guaranteed benefit to a premium -- whatever you call it, the bottom line is people will have to pay more out of their

own pocket. >> the wealthy will. >> and the families i come from don't have the money. >> gentlemen, i would like to move on to a simple question and something tells me i won't get a simple answer. on to taxes. if your ticket is elected, who will pay more and who will pay less in taxes, vice president? >> the middle class will pay less and people making a ll dollars will pay slightly more. the continueuation of the bush tax cuts, we're arguing the tax cuts for the wealthy should be allowed to expire. $800 billion of that goes to people making a minimum of $1 million. we see no justification, they're not asking for this continued tax cut or suggesting it.

but my friends are insisting only it. 120,000 families, by continuing that tax cut, will get an additional $500 billion in tax relief in the next ten years. we want to extend permanently the middle class tax cut permanently, from the bush middle class tax cut. these guys won't allow us to. we say let's have a vote on the middle class tax cut and have a vote on the upper tax cut. let's vote on it. they're staying no. they're holding hostage the middle class tax cut to the super wealthy. on top of that, they've got another tax cut coming that's $5 trillion that all of the studies point out will give another $250 million -- yeah, $250,000 a year to those 120,000 families, and raise taxes for people two are middle income with a child by $2,000 a year. this is unconscionable.

there is no need for this. the middle class got knocked on their heels. the great recession crushed them. thy need some help now. the last people who need help are 120,000 families for under $500 billion tax cut over the next ten years. >> congressman? >> our entire premise of these tax plans are to grow the economy and create jobs. it's estimated to create 7 million jobs. we think that government taking 28% of a family and business's income is enough. president obama thinks that the government ought to be able to take as much as 44.8% of a small business's income. look, if you taxed every person in a successful small business making over $250,000 at 100%, it would only run the government for 98 days. if everybody who paid taxes last

year doubled their taxes this year, we would still have a $300 billion deficit. you see, there aren't enough rich people and small businesses to tax to pay for all their spending. and so the next time you hear them say, don't worry about it, we'll get a few wealthy people to pay their fair share, watch out, middle class, the tax bill is coming to you. that's why we're saying we need punishment tax reform. let's look at it this way. 8 out of 10 businesses, they file their taxes as individuals, not corporations. where i come from overseas, which is lake superior, the canadians, they drop their tax rates to 15%. the average tax rate on businesses in the industrialized world is 25% and the president wants the effective top tax rate to go above 40%. 2/3 of our jobs come from small businesses. this one tax would actually fax about 53% of small business income. it's expected to cost us 710,000

jobs. and it doesn't even pay for 10% of the proposed deficit spending increases. we're saying close loopholes primarily to the higher income people. we have three bottom lines. don't raise the deficit. don't raise taxes on the middle class. and don't lower the share of income born by the high income earners. he'll keep saying this $5 trillion plan. it's been discredited by six other studies and their own deputy campaign manager acknowledged it wasn't correct. >> let's talk about this 20%. you have refused to offer specifics on how you pay for that 20% across the board tax cut. do you actually have the specifics or are you still working on it and that's why you won't tell voters? >> different than this administration, we want to have big bipartisan agreements. see, i understand -- >> do you have the specifics, do you have the -- >> that would be the first in a

republican congress. >> look at what ronald reagan and tip o'neill did. they worked together to broaden the base and lower tax rates. what we're saying is, here is our frame work. lower taxes 20%. 1.1 million in loopholes and deductions. deny those loopholes and deductions to higher-income taxpayers so more income is taxed, which has a broader base of taxation. and here is why i'm saying this. what we're saying -- >> i hope i get time to respond to this? >> you will get time. >> we want to work with congress, that means specifically. >> no specific. >> what we're saying is lower tax rates 20%. >> and you guarantee this math will add up. >> six studies have guaranteed and said this math adds up. >> let me translate. >> i'll come back in a second,

right? >> i was there when ronald reagan you gave tax rates, he gave specifics of what he would cut in terms of taxan expenditures. 90% of small businesses in america make less than 250,000. let me tell you who other small businesses are. hedge funds, that make $600, $800 million a year. that will count as small business. let's look how sincere they are. ronald reagan on "60 minutes" asked you pay 14% on $20 million. you will make him pay more than that. he said that's fair. that's fair. this is -- and they -- you think these guys will go out and cut those loopholes? the biggest loophole they take advantage is the carried interest loophole and capital gains. they exempt that. not enough. the reason why the aei study,

the tax institute policy study say taxes go up for the middle class, the only way you can find $5 trillion in loopholes cut the mortgage ducks for middle class people. cut the health care ducks for middle class people. take away their ability to get a tax break to send their kids to college. that's why -- >> is he wrong about that? >> is he wrong about that. >> how is that? >> cut tax rates by 20% and preserve important preferences for middle income taxpayers. >> not mathematically possible. >> it is. it's been done before. >> it has never been done before. >> jack kennedy lowered tax rates and increased growth. >> now you're jack kennedy. >> this is amazing. >> republicans and democrats have worked together on this. i understand you guys aren't used to bipartisan deals. >> when we did it with reagan, he said these are the things we'll cut. >> we'll fill in the details.

>> that's how you get things done. you work with congress -- look, let me say it this way. >> republican congress, working bipartisanly. 7% rating, come on. >> 87% of legislators were democrats. he didn't dem niz them, dem going to them, he met with them every week, reached across the aisle, didn't compromise principles, and he balanced the budget. >> if he did such a great job. a great job -- >> without raising taxes. >> why isn't he contesting massachusetts? >> what would you suggest beyond raising taxes on the wealthy that would substantially reduce the long-term deficit. >> let taxes expire like they are supposed to on millionaires. we can't afford this going to people making a minimum of a million dollars. they don't need it tho.

middle class people need the help. why does my friend cut out the tuition tax credit for them? why does he go after -- >> can you -- can you declare anything offlimits? home mortgage ducks? >> for hher income people. >> can you guarantee that no one making less than $100,000 will have a mortgage duceduction impacted? >> he keeps trying to make you think this is some movie star hedge fund. 90% of them make 250,000 a year. >> this tax is a million people. a million small businesses. >> it taxed a million small businesses who are the greatest job creator. >> and you are going to increase the defense budget. >> we're just not going to cut the defense budget. >> $2 billion. >> we're talking about -- >> no massive defense increase.

>> you want to go to defense right now? >> yes, i do. that's another math question. how do you do that? >> they proposed cuts to defense to begin with, now we have another $500 billion cut to defense and they insisted that cut being involved in the debt negotiations. >> let's put the automatic defense cuts aside. >> okay. >> let's put that aside. no one wants that. i want to know, how do you do the math and have the increase in defense spending. >> you don't cut defense by a trillion. that's what we're talking about. >> what national security issue is justify an increase? >> we'll cut 80,000 soldiers, 20,000 marines, 120 cargo planes, we'll put the joint -- >> drawing down. and one more and one more. >> if these cuss go through, our navy will be the smallest it has been since before world war i.

this invites weakness. do we believe in strength? you bet we do. you don't impose these devastating cuts on our military. don't cut the military by a trillion. not increase it by a million, don't cut it by a trillion. >> quickly, vice president biden. >> we don't want to use the word sequester, automatic cut. that was part of a debt deal they asked for. let me tell you what my friend said at a press conference. he said we've been looking for this moment for a long time. >> can i tell you what that meant? we have been looking for bipartisanship for a long time. >> bipartisanship is what he voted no, the automatic cuts in defense if they didn't act. and beyond that, they asked for another -- look, the military says we need a smaller, leaner army. we need more special forces. >> some of the military. >> not some of the military, that was the decision of the

joint chiefs of staff. recommended to us and agreed to by the president. they made the recommendation first. >> okay. let's move on to afghanistan. i'd like to move on to afghanistan, please. that's one of the biggest expenditures this country has made in dollars and more importantly in lives. we just passed the sad milestone of losing 2,000 u.s. troops in this war. more than 50 were killed this year by the very after began forces we're trying to help. we've reached the recruiting goal for afghan forces, we've degraded al qaeda. why not leave now? what more can we really accomplish? is it worth more more than lives? >> we don't want to lose the gains we've gotten. we want to make sure the taliban doesn't come back in, give al qaeda a safe haven. we agree with the 2014 transition. when i think of afghanistan, i

think of the incredible job that our troops have done. have you been there more than the two of us combined. first time i was there in 2002, it was amazing to me what they were facing. i went to kandahar before the surge, sat down with a young private from the 82nd, who would tell me what he did every day, and i was in awe and to see what they had in front of them and to go back in december to see what they accomplished? it's nothing short of amazing. what we don't want to do is lose the gains we've gotten. we've disagreed from time to time. we would more likely to take into account, recommendations from our commanders on troop levels throughout this year's fighting season. skeptical about negotiations with the taliban. especially while they are shooting at us. but we want to see the 2014 transition be successful and that means we want to make sure our commanders have what they

need to make sure it is successful to sow that this does not become a launching pad for terrorists. >> let's keep our eye on the ball. i have been in iraq and afghanistan 20 time. i have been throughout that country, mostly in a helicopter, sometimes in a vehicle. we went there for one reason. to get those people who killed americans, al qaeda. we decimated al qaeda central, eliminated osama bin laden, that was our purpose. and in the meantime, we said we would help train the afghan military. it's their responsibility to take over their own security. that's why with 49 of our allies in afghanistan, we've agreed on a gradual drawdown so we're out of there by the year 20 -- end of the year 2014.

my friend and the governor say it's based on conditions. it means it depends. it does not depend for us. it is the responsibility of the afghans to take care of their own security. we have trained over 315,000, mostly without incident. there have been more than two dozen cases of green on blue where americans have been killed. if we do -- if the measures, the military has taken, do not take hold, we will not go on joint patrols, we will not train in the field, we'll only train in t the army bases that exist there. we are leaving. we are leaving in 20 14, period. in the process, we'll be saving over the next ten years, another $800 billion. we've been in the war for over a decade. primary objective is almost completed, now all we're doing is putting the kabul government

in a position to be able to maintain their own security. it's their responsibility, not america's. >> what conditions could justify staying, congressman ryan? >> we don't want to stay. one of my best friends in janesville, a reservist is at a forward operating base in afghanistan right now. our wives are best friends, our daughters are best friends. i want him and all of our troops to come home as soon and safely as possible. we want to make sure the 2014 is successful. that's why we want to make sure we give our commanders what they say they need to make it successful. we don't want to extend beyond 2014. if it was just this, i would feel like we would be able to call this a success. but it's not. what we are witnessing is the absolutely unraveling of the obama foreign policy.

problems are growing at home -- problems are growing abroad, but jobs aren't growing here at home. >> let's go back to this. he says we're absolutely leaving in 2014. you're saying that's not an absolute -- >> you know why we say that? you know why we say that? we don't want to broadcast our enemies, put a date on our calendar, wait us out and then come back. >> you agree with the timeline? >> we do agree with the sameline and the transition, what -- what any administration will do in 2013, assess the situation to see how best to complete the timeline. >> we will leave in 2014. >> what we don't want to do is give our allies reason to trust us less and our enemies more -- we don't want to elm boldern and hold out. >> that's a bizarre statement. 49 allies. hear me. 49 of our allies signed on to

this position. >> 49. 49 of our allies said out in 2014. it's the responsibility of the afghans. we have other responsibilities. >> do you think -- we have -- we have soldiers and marines, afghan forces murdering our forces over there. the taliban, do you think is taking advantage of this timeline? >> the taliban, what we've found out and you saw it in iraq, martha, unless you set a timeline, baghdad, in the case of iraq and kabul in the case of afghanistan, will not step up. they are happy for to us do the job, international security forces to do the job. the only way to step up is to say, fellows, we're leaving. we've trained you, step up. step up. >> let me -- >> that's the only way it works.

>> let me go back to the surge troops that we put in there, and you brought this up, congressman ryan. i've talked to a lot of troops, to senior officers who were concerned that the surge troops were pulled out during the fighting season and some of them saw that as a political move. can you tell me what was the military reason for bringing those surge troops home. >> the military reason -- by the way, the president announced the surge, you'll remember, martha, he said that the surge will be out by the end of the summer. the military said the surge will be out. nothing political about this. before the surge occurred, so you be straight with me here too. before the surge occurred, we said that they will be out by the end of the summer. that's what the military said. the reason for that is. >> military follows orders. trust me. there are people who are concerned about pulling out.

>> there are people who are concerned. not the chiefs. it was their recommendation in the oval office to the president of the united states of america. i sat there. i'm positive you will find someone who disagrees in the pentd gone, in the military. but that's not the case here. the reason why the military said that, you cannot wait and have a cliff. it takes uno months and months and months to draw downforces. >> let me try and illustrate the issue here, because i think this can get a little confusing. we've all met with general allen and general scaparotti to talk about fighting seasons. here is how it works. mountain passes fill with snow, and the taliban and al qaeda come over to fight our men and women. when it fills with snow, they can't do it. in the warm months, fighting gets high, in the winter it goes down, so when admiral mullen and

general petraeus came to congress and said, if you pull these people out before the fighting season ends, it puts people more at terrific, that's the problem. yes, we drew 22,000 troops down last month, but the remaining troops who are there, who still have the same mission to prosecute, counterinsurgency are doing it with fewer people. that makes them less safe. we're sending fewer people out in all these hotspots to do the same job they were to do a month ago. >> because we turned over to the afghan troops we trained. no one got pulled out that didn't get filled in by trained afghan personnel. and he's conflating these two issues. the fighting season petraeus was talking about and admiral mullen was the fighting season this string.

that spring. we did not pull them out. >> the calendar works the same every year. spring, summer, fall, it's warm or it's not. they are still fighting us, coming over the passes. they are still coming in to zabul, kunar, all these areas and we're sending fewer people to fight them. >> that's because it's the afghan responsibility. we have trained them. >> not in the east. >> the east is the most dangerous place in the world. you would rather americans go in to do the job. >> no, we're sending americans to do the job, fewer of them. >> that's right, we're sending more afghans to do the job. more afghans to do the job. >> let's move to another war, the civil war in syria, where there are estimates that more than 25,000, 30,000 people have now been killed. in march of last year, president

obama explained the military action taken in libya by saying it was in the national interest to go in and prevent further massacres from occurring there. why doesn't the same logic apply in syria? >> it's a different country. it's a different country. it is five times as large geographically. it has one fifth the population that is libya. one fifth the population, five times as large geographically. you would not see whatever would come from that war, would seep into a regional war. are you in a count you are in a country that is heavily populated, in the most dangerous area in the world. and if, in fact, it blows up, the wrong people gain control it will have impact on the entire region, causing potentially regional wars. we're working hand in glove with the turks, jordanians, saudis,

with all of the people in the region, attempting to identify the people who deserve the help so when assad goes and he will go. there will be a legitimate government that follows on. not an al qaeda sponsored government that follows on. and all this loose talk of my friend, governor romney and the congressman about how we are going to do -- we could do so much more. what more would they do, other than put american boots on the ground. the last thing america needs is to get in another ground war in the middle east. requiring tens of thousands, if not well over 100,000 american forces. that -- they are the facts. they are the facts. every time the governor is asked about this, he doesn't say anything. he goes up with a whole lot of verba verb verbiage, but he says he would not do anything different than what he is doing now. are they proposing putting

american troops on the ground, american planes in the air space? if they do, then they should speak up and say so. that's not what they are saying. we're doing it exactly like we need to do to identify those force forces who will provide for a stable government and not cause a regional sunni/shia war. >> no one is proposing to send american troops to syria. how would we do things differently? we wouldn't refer to bashar assad as a reformer when he is killing his own civilians with russian supplied weapons. we couldn't give vladmir putin veto power over our ways to deal with this. hillary clinton, they thwarted

our efforts this is one example of how the russia reset is not working. where are we? after international pressure, then president obama said bashar assad should go. it's been over a year. he has slaughtered tens of thousands of his own people, and the longer this has gone on, the more people -- groups like al qaeda are going in. we could have more easily identified a free syrian army, freedom fighters, working with allies, turks, saudis. had we had a better plan in place working with our allies. we waited for kofi an an to come up with an agreement with the u.n. that brought bashar assaad time. we gave them veto power and 30,000 syrians are dead. >> what would my friend do

differently? you notice, he never answers the question. >> we wouldn't be go through all of the u.n. and all of these things. >> we don't go through the u.n. we are in the process now and have been more positives in making sure that help, humanitarian aid as well as other aid and training is getting those forces that we believe the turks believes, the jordanians believe, the saudis believe are the free forces inside syria. that's under way. allies all on the same page. nato as well as our arab allies. in terms of trying to get a settlement. we were the ones that said enough. in regard to the reset not working. the fact of the matter is russia has a different interest in syrian than we do, and it's not in our interest. >> what happens if assad does not fall? congressman ryan? what happens to the region? what happens if he hangs on?

>> then iran keeps their greatest ally in the region. a sponsor of terrorism. he will probably continue slaughtering his people. we'll lose our credibility on this. he mentioned the reset. >> what would romney/ryan do? >> we agree with the same redline that they do on chemical weapons, but not putting american troops in, other than to secure chemical weapons. they are right about that. what we should have done earlier is work with those freedom fighters. we should not have called assaad -- >> we should not wait for russia to give us the green light. they are still arming the man. iran is sending flights over iraq to help bashar assad. and by the way, if we had the status of forces agreement that the vice president said he would bet his vice presidency on in

iraq, we would probably have this. >> what is in the national interests of the american people. the strategic national interests of our country. >> no humanitarian? >> each situation will come up with its own set of circumstances, but putting american troops on the ground, has to be within the national security interest of the american people. that means things like embargoes and sanctions, those are the things that don't put the troops on the ground. but if you are talking about putting troops on the ground, only in our national security interest. >> i want to return home for these last few questions. this debate is indeed historic. we have two catholic candidates, first time on a stage such as this. i would like to ask you both

what role your religion has played in your own personal views on abortion? please talk about how you came to that decision. talk about how religion played a role. and please talk personally about this, if you could. congressman ryan. >> i don't see how a person can separate their public life from their private life. my faith informs me how to take care of the vulnerable, how to make sure that people have a chance in life. you ask me why i'm pro life? it's not simply because of my catholic faith. that's a factor, of course, but it's also because of reason and science. you know, i think about 10 1/2

years ago, my wife jan and i went to mercy hospital in janesville, where i was born, for our seven-week ultrasound for our first born child. we saw that heartbeat, our little baby was in the shape of a bean. and to this day, we have nicknamed our first born child, l liza, bean. i believe life begins at concept, those are the reasons why i'm pro life. now, i understand this is a difficult issue and i respect people who don't agree with me on this. but the policy of a romney administration will be to oppose abortion except in instances of rape, incest, and the life of the mother. what troubles me more is how this administration has handled all of these issues. look what they are doing with obama care to infringe upon our first freedom.

the freedom of religion, by infringing on catholic charities, catholic churches, catholic hospitals. our church should not have to sue the federal government to maintain their liberties. and abortion, they wanted it to be safe, legal and rare. now they support it without restrictions and with taxpayer funding. the vice president himself went to schina and said he sympathiesed or wouldn't second guess their one-child policy of forced abortions and sterilizations. that to me is pretty extreme. >> vice president biden. >> my religion defines who i am, and i've been a practicing catholic my whole life. and it has particularly informed my social doctrine. catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who can't take care of themselves.

people who need help. with regard to abortion, i accept my church's position on abortion as what we call a di fete doctrine. i refuse to oppose it on equally devout christians and muslims and jews and i just refuse to impose that on others. unlike my friend here, the congressman. i -- i do not believe that we have a right to tell other people, women, they can't control their body. u.s. a decision between them and their doctor in my view, and the supreme court. i'm not going to interfere with that. wr regard to the assault on the catholic church, let me make it absolutely clear, no religious institution, catholic or

otherwise, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. that is a fact. now with regard to the way in which we differ, my friend says that he -- i guess he accepts governor romney's position. in the past, he has argued that there was rape and forcible rape, and he's argued in the case of rape or incest, it would be a crime to engage in having an borngs. i fundamentally disagree. >> all i'm saying if you believe life begins at concept that doesn't change the definition of life. that's a principal. the policy of a romney

administration is to oppose abortion with exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mother. now, i've got to take issue with the catholic church and religio religious liberty. why would they keep suing me? >> i want to go back to the abortion question. if the romney/ryan ticket is elected, should those who worry that abortion remain legal be worried? >> we don't think un-elected judges should make this decision, but people through their elected representatives, and those nominated, should make this decision. >> the next president will get one or two supreme court nominees. that's hoe close roe versus wade is. just ask yourself, with robert bork the chief advisor in the

court for mr. romney, who is he likely to appoint? someone like scalia or on the court that would be -- that would outlaw abortion? i guarantee that won't happen. we pick people open minds. so keep an eye -- >> was there a litmus test on this? >> we picked people who had an open mind, didn't come with an agenda. >> i'm going to move on to the closing question. we're running out of time. the two of you respect our troops enormously. your son has served, and perhaps some day your children will serve as well. i recently spoke to a highly decorated soldier who says this presidential campaign has left him dismayed, he told me "the ads are so negative and all tearing down each other, rather

than building up the country. what would you say to that american hero about this campaign? and at the end of the day, are you ever embarrassed by the tone? vice president biden. >> i would say to him, the same thing i say to my son who did serve a year in iraq. we only have one truly sacred obligation as a government. and that's to equip those we send into harm's way and care for those who come home. that's the only sacred obligation we have. everything else falls behind that. i would also tell thumb that the fact that he, this decorated soldier you talked about, fought for his country, that this should be honored. he shouldn't be thrown into a category of 47% who don't pay their taxes while he was out there fighting, not having to

pay taxes and not taking responsibility. i would also tell him that things that occurred in this campaign, every campaign, that i'm sure both of us regret. any of us having said, particularly in these special new groups that can go out there, raise all the money they want. not have to identify themselves and say the most scurrilous things about the other candidate. ist an abomination. but the bottomline, i would ask that hero you reference to take a look at whether or not positive governor romney or president obama has the conviction to restore the middle class before this great recession hit and they got wiped out, or whether or not he will continue to focus on taking care of only the very wealthy, not asking them to pay any part to bring back the middle class of this country. i would ask him to take a look at whether the president of the

united states has acted wisely in the use of force and whether or not this slipshod comments being made by governor romney serve our interests very well. there are things said in campaigns that i find not very appealing. >> congressman ryan. >> first of all, i would thank for his service to our country. secondly, i would say we won't impose these cuts that will be devastating to our military. and then i would say have you a president that ran promising hope and change and turned his campaign into attack, blame, and defame. you see, if you don't have a good record to run on, then you paint your owe pony nenlt as someone to run from that's what president obama said in 2008 and what he's doing right now. look at the string of broken promises. if you like your health care

plan, you can keep it. try telling that to the 20 million people who are projected to lose their health care. remember what he said this, if you make less than 250,000, your taxes won't go up. of the 21 tax increases, 12 of them hit the middle class. health premiums will go down every year. they are expected to go up $2,400. are he said i promise by the end of my first, term, i'll cut the deficit in half. we've had four budgets. we can't keep spending money we don't have. leaders run to problems to fix proble. president obama has not even put a credible plan on the table in any of his four years to deal with his debt crisis.

mitt romney has put ideas on the table. we have to tackle this before it tackles us. we asked the president's budget office, can we see the plan, and the press secretary gave us a copy of the speech. and we asked the congressional budget office, and he said we can't estimate speeches. that's what we get in this administration. speeches, but we're not getting leadership. mitt romney is uniquely qualified to fix these problems. lifetime of experience, proven track record and what do we have from the president? he broke his big promise to bring people together to solve the country's biggest problem. i would tell him we don't have to settle for this, we can do better thank this. >> i hope i get section walltime. >> you have just a few minutes, a few seconds actually. >> the two budgets that congress

has introduced, has eviscerated the middle class. it will kick 200,000 children off early education and eliminate the tax credit people have to be able to send their children to college. it cuts education by 4$450 billion. it does virtually nothing except to increase the tax cuts for the very wealthy. we've had enough of this. the idea that he's so concerned about the deficit, i pointed out, he voted to put two wars on the credit card. >> we will have closing statements. >> not raising taxes cutting taxes. and t this is not -- let me calm down things here just for a minute, and i want to talk to you very briefly before we go to closing statements about your own personal character. if you were elected what could

you both give to this country as a man, as a human being, that no one else could? >> honesty. no one else could. there are plenty of fine people that could lead this country. what you need are people who when they say they are going to do something is they go do it. when people see solutions, they offer a solution. we're not getting that. our plan is getting people out of povrerity to the middle class. that means going with pro growth policies that we know get people back to work. putting ideas on the table. working with democrats. that works -- >> vice president, could we get to that issue, what you would bring as a man, human being? i will keep you to about 15 seconds. >> he gets 40, i get 15? >> he didn't have 40. >> that's okay. >> my record stands for itself.

everybody knows whatever i say i do, and my whole life has been devoted to leveling the playing deal. giving them an each break. holding wall street and main street the same. look at my record, all about the middle class. they are the people that grow this country. we grow in country from the middle out, not from the top down. >> now to closing statements. thank you, gentlemen. and the coin toss has vice president biden starting. >> let me say at the outset, thank you, martha, for doing this and centre college. we're in a situation where we inherited a god awful circumstance. we acted to move to relieve people who need the most help now. an